SCOTUS Nominee Judge Gorsuch Just SCHOOLED Feinstein on 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
I think she was trying to bait him into saying AR's are not covered by the 2nd or Heller and he didn't fall for it.
Not only did he not fall for it, he correctly articulated that our legal system is based on precedent, and that the courts are bound by that precedent, not what the judges--or other politicians--wish were the case. He has said similar before: "judges should instead strive to apply the law as they find it, focusing backwards, not forwards" (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/51333...-philosophy-contrasts-with-mentors-pragmatism) and
These principles are important beyond my ability to put into words. Judges (and Justices) should rule upon legal principles, not desirable outcomes; getting to an outcome is a function of the political process, not judicial. The Supreme Court has held in many cases that a question is "nonjusticiable" on the grounds that it is a "political question:" one "which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
His stock just went up a couple more points in my book, not because he gave the "right answer" on guns, but because he got there by the right process.
He seems like a good man to have on the bench. (But, I'm fully prepared for him to screw us and toss away our freedoms.)
I watched about 2 hours of the hearings last week and watched an hour or so more online. Mr. Gorsuch impressed me more than any judicial nominee I've heard or read about. The Democrats opposition to Gorsuch's nomination is the most telling example of partisanship I can recall. I can't imagine a better qualified and reasonable person to sit on the court.
Agree. All of his responses were to follow the law as written.
I watched Sen Diane Feinstein's blurb about how she could not support him. I don't have the quote but the gist of it was she wouldn't vote for him because he would not consider the human factor or something like that in his decisions.
WTF does that mean? Disregard the law and because you like the way joe blow thinks you should not follow the law and side with joe blow?
I just don't understand that line of thought.
Last edited:
I'm very impressed with him. I can't believe the nonsense his opponents have pulled and the absolute spectacle they are making of themselves so they can tell their backers how hard they fought until the rules were so unfairly changed (just as they have done to get people they like confirmed).
Similar threads
